Thursday, July 26, 2007

What lies betwixt his neo-Elvis mutton chop sideburns is anyone's guess. But he is determined to edu-ma-cate our neighbours to the south about the Communist horror that is Canada. Published today at the WorldNutDaily, is his premiere article - thoughtfully entitled "Freedom-snatching Commie-Commissions". The target of his ravings this time around is the Human Rights Commission, and its "assault" on the folks at Free Dominion. (The issue of content at FD has been discussed by Red Tory, Jeff Davidson, and BigCityLib)

Students of history will have heard of SMERSH. It was a forerunner of the KGB, a Communist Party commissariat under Josef Stalin. SMERSH was empowered to investigate and arrest conspirators and public critics of "the Party" – people living in the former Soviet Union didn't have constitutional freedoms. Well, Canada has its own commissariats, in the form of Human Rights Commissions. Some people refer to them as "kangaroo courts," but that is misleading because they really are dangerous. That's why I call them Commie-Commissions, and like SMERSH, they are empowered to investigate anyone who does not abide with the current stream of political correctness.

He's right of course. "Kangaroo court" (how most normal people refer to the Human Rights Commission) is totally misleading. Everyone knows we don't have kangaroos in Canada.

But whatever the reasons, the Commie-Commissions have determined that criticism of either homosexuals or Muslims is strictly off limits, even if the critiques are rooted in verifiable truth. And finally, and most importantly, remember that America is the last bastion of real political freedom left in the world. Most other Western democracies have bought into the hate-crimes propaganda, surrendering their constitutional liberties to those arrogant elites at the U.N. who want power and control and who are prepared to stuff political correctness down our throats even if that means muzzling free speech. Commie-Commissions are as dangerous as SMERSH – don't let them set foot in your country.

If not for freedom crusaders like Emmanuel, the Islamophobic, homophobic people at Free Dominion might be forced to surrender their "constitutional liberty" of bigotry to the "arrogant elites at the U.N." Eat that, Ban Ki-Moon!!

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

So hope Republican strategists, according to a recent column by Gwynne Dyer published in the Georgia Straight. In his commentary, Dyer provides sobering insight into the machinations behind the current debate over American troop withdrawal from Iraq.

Why, despite continuing evidence of failure, overwhelming public opinion, ostensible Democratic 'solidarity', and high profile Republican 'defections', has the President been able to maintain his troop surge without serious challenge? According to Dyer, it has as much to do with domestic politics as it does with on-the-ground realities in Iraq.

With respect to the latter, Dyer feels that it might still be feasible to withdraw the 160,000 US soldiers from the region in a reasonably orderly manner, but the collateral loss of life would be nothing short of tragic.

It would still be possible to get the 160,000 American troops out of Iraq without scenes reminiscent of the U.S. retreat from the Chosin Reservoir in Korea (1950), let alone the British retreat from Kabul (1842)......The problem is the collaborators. Tens of thousands of people will probably be killed if they don't leave Iraq when the Americans do, from humble drivers and translators all the way up to senior political and military figures who are too closely identified with the U.S. occupation forces. But given the current state of American opinion about Arabs and terrorism, the United States will not welcome Iraqi refugees today in the same way that it took in Vietnamese refugees 30 years ago.

Fair enough. But more disturbing is the consideration that the status quo will be maintained because both Democrats and Republicans have conceded that troop withdrawal prior to the next Presidential election would be of no politicalbenefit to either party.

From the Republican perspective:

All political attention in Washington is now fixed on the November 2008 election. That is already too close for a high-speed American withdrawal from Iraq to be forgotten before the voters go to the polls, so mainstream Republican opinion will back Bush's strategy down to 2009, even in the knowledge that it will ultimately fail. The alternative, an early withdrawal, is probably worse in terms of the election outcome in Congress. (I suspect that senior Republican strategists assume that the presidency is already lost.)

And from the Democratic perspective:

If the Democrats forced a troop withdrawal now, the Republicans would accuse them of "stabbing America in the back". If the pullout comes after they win the 2008 election, then the disaster will happen on their watch, and the fickle public will already have forgotten who really caused it. So–goes the prevailing logic in the Democratic camp–let's at least win the election before we get blamed for the mess.

So Bush's strategy is to "stay the course", endure whatever losses are incurred, and pass the blame onto the next President. And the Democrats seem happy to play along, if it improves their odds of securing the next election.

We can calculate that about 2,000 more American troops will die by early 2009 in the service of these political strategies

And God knows how many more Iraqis - if it even matters to American politicians anymore.

Sunday, July 22, 2007

Kudos to Stephen Harper, Stephane Dion, Dalton McGuinty and David Miller for attending the opening ceremonies of the new BAPS Hindu temple north of Toronto today. Aside from its obvious cultural significance, the temple is an impressive architectural accomplishment.